USPTO Patents Application 10724941

In re: Karin Spalink et al.
Serial No.: 10/724,941
Filed: December 1, 2003
Page 10 of 13

REMARKS

Applicants appreciate the detailed examination evidenced by the Office Action mailed
July 30, 2007 (hereinafter "Office Action"). In response. Applicants have amended
independent Claims 1,16 and 31 to clarify the nature of the claimed subject matter and
highlight patentable distinctions over the cited references. Applicants have amended
dependent Claims 2, 8, 23, 32 and 38 in keeping with the amendments to the independent
claims, have canceled Claims 3, 18 and 33, and have added new Claims 47-49, which are
supported by the disclosure of the application as filed. Reasons supporting patentability of
the claims are presented below.

The § 101 rejections are overcome

Applicants have amended the portion of the specification cited on page 2 of the Office
Action to remove reference to "signal propagation medium." Applicants submit that the
amendments overcome the § 101 rejections of Claims 31-40.

Amended independent Clainis 1, 16 and 31 are patentable.

As amended, independent Claim 1 recites:

A method of managing display of menu items on a display of an electronic device, the
method comprising:

defining first and second menus comprising respective first and second groups
of menu items, wherein the first group of menu items is a subset of the second group
of menu items;

displaying the first menu as a first rectangular array having plural rows and
plural columns; and

responsive to user activation of a menu expansion function, displaying the
second menu as a second rectangular array having a greater number of rows
and/or columns than the first rectangular array.

Independent Claims 16 and 31 have been similarly amended.

In rejecting Claim 3 as allegedly obvious with respect to a combination of U.S. Patent
No. 6,121,968 to Arcuri et al. ("Arcuri '968") and U.S. Patent No. 6,232,972 to Arcuri et al.
("Arcuri '972"), the Office Action concedes that Arcuri '968 "does not teach wherein the first
menu comprises a first array of icons having a first number of rows and a first number of
columns; and wherein the second menu comprises a second array of icons having a second

In re: Karin Spalink et al.
Serial No.: 10/724,941
Filed: December 1 , 2003
Page 11 of 13

number of rows and a second number of colunms, wherein the second number of rows is
greater than the first number of rows and/or the second number of colunms is greater than the
first number of columns." Office Action, p. 5. Thus, Applicants submit that Arcuri '968 also
does not disclose or suggest "displaying the first menu as a first rectangular array having
plural rows and plural columns" and "responsive to user activation of a menu expansion
function, displaying the second menu as a second rectangular array having a greater number
of rows and/or columns than the first rectangular array," as recited in amended independent
Claim 1, or corresponding recitations of amended independent Claims 16 and 31.
The Office Action further asserts:

. . . Arcuri '972 teaches a first menu comprises a first array of icons having a first
number of rows and a first number of columns (see fig. 2b; array of icons 200 having
a first number of rows and a first number of columns); and a second menu comprises
a second array of icons having a second nimiber of rows and a second number of
columns, wherein the second number of rows is greater than the first number of rows
and/or the second number of columns is greater than the second number of columns
(see fig. 2C; col. 7, lines 49-58; second array of icons 215 . . .

Office Action, p. 6. Applicants note that the alleged "first menu" 200 in Arcuri '972 does not
include "plural rows" as recited in Claim 1 and, therefore, Arcuri '968 and Arcuri '972, alone
or combination, do not disclose or suggest such recitations. In addition, the alleged "second
menu" 215 in Arcuri '972 does not include menu items from the alleged "first menu" 200 and,
therefore, the proposed combination of Arcuri '968 and Arcuri '972 also does not disclose or
suggest display of first and second menus as rectangular arrays "wherein the first group of
menu items is a subset of the second group of menu items." As none of the other cited
references appear to provide the missing teachings. Applicants submit that amended
independent Claims 1,16 and 31 are patentable.

The dependent claims are patentable

AppUcants submit that dependent claims 1, 4-10, 17, 19-25, 32, 34-40 and 47-49 are
patentable at least by virtue of the patentability of the respective ones of independent Claims
1,16 and 31 from which they depend. Applicants further submit that several of the
dependent claims are separately patentable.

In re: Karin Spalink et al.
Serial No.: 10/724,941
Filed: December 1, 2003
Page 12 of 13

For example, new Claim 47 recites:

A method according to Claim 1, further comprising:

defining a third menu comprising a third group of menu items, wherein the
first and second groups of menu items are subsets of the third group of menu items;

responsive to user activation of a menu expansion function, transitioning from
display of the second rectangular array to display of the third menu as a third
rectangular array having a greater number of rows and/or columns than the second
rectangular array; and

responsive to user activation of a menu reduction function, transitioning fi-om
display of the third rectangular array to display of the first rectangular array.

Corresponding apparatus and computer program product recitations are provided in new
Claims 48 and 49. Such recitations are supported, for example, in the description provided
on page 6, lines 1-9 of the specification:

User selection of the menu expansion function menu item 140 leads to display of the
menu 300 of FIG. 3. The menu 300 includes the menu items 110, 120, 130, 150, 160
of FIG. 2, which retain their mutual relationships. The expanded menu 300 further
includes an additional row of menu items 170, 180, 190, which correspond to
respective account information, phone settings, and security functions of the device.
In the illustrated embodiments of FIGs. 1-3, the menu 300 represents the maximum
menu expansion. The menu 300 includes a menu reduction fimction menu item 140'
that leads back to the reduced-order menu 100 of FIG. 1, i.e., such that the menus 100,
200, 300 can be traversed in a cyclical fashion.

Applicants submit that the recitations of new Claims 47-49 are neither disclosed nor
suggested by the cited references and that, thereforCj Claims 47-49 are separately patentable.

Conclusion

As all of the claims are now in condition for allowance. Applicants respectfully
request allowance of the claims and passing of the application to issue in due course.
Applicants urge the Examiner to contact Applicants* undersigned representative at (919) 854-
1400 to resolve any remaining formal issues.

In re: Karin Spalink et al.
Serial No.: 10/724,941
Filed: December 1 , 2003
Page 13 ofl3

Customer Number 54414

Myers Bigel Sibley & Sajovec, P.A.
P.O. Box 37428
Raleigh, NC 27627
919-854-1400
919-854-1401 (Fax)

I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the Office electronic filing system in accordance with
§ 1 jSfe)(4) to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on October 1 1 , 2007.

CERTIFICATION OF TRANSMISSION

Candi L. Riggs